YoloinOhio Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) When it comes to diagnosing an NFL play, observers have limitations http://mynorthwest.com/292/2868141/ONeil-The-limitations-of-observers-in-diagnosing-an-NFL-play This is about explaining the gap between the results we see on a given NFL play and the underlying reasons for those results. It's the gap between what players and coaches know and what the people who observe the game whether it's media members or fans think they know. And actually, it's really not so much a gap as a canyon. Edited December 10, 2015 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 When it comes to diagnosing an NFL play, observers have limitations http://mynorthwest.com/292/2868141/ONeil-The-limitations-of-observers-in-diagnosing-an-NFL-play Damn thats a fine read. Everyone in the world should be able to appreciate this effort. He does not justify himself so much as admit the differences in perspective we all have. There is nothing wrong with taking a position. But being able to understand why you were wrong is impressive. Thanks Yolo for the link. I sure did like that little bit of self analyzing from Seattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Nice to see a media member humble himself in such a fashion. It's rare (I'm looking at you Buscaglia). I've been excoriated by some around here in the past for simply having the temerity to suggest that perhaps we need more context before assigning failure to a particular player on a particular play. Football is not a complex game in the least. But there are 22 moving parts on any given play and each one of those parts has a specific assignment of responsibility. Sometimes it's obvious who broke down. Most of the time it isn't. Especially where line play is concerned. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted December 11, 2015 Author Share Posted December 11, 2015 OL play is definitely the toughest one to evaluate in a game without understand blocking assignments and scheme, which is why PFF grades for OL are so lacking in credibility. If I'm not mistaken, they are assigning grades using the broadcast and not even the all-22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BackInDaDay Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 football can be enjoyed at multiple levels. most fans don't understand what they're seeing, and could care less.. because it in no way impacts the enjoyment they get from watching a game. at it's simplest level, you can watch the ball.. those trusted to advance it, and those trusted to stop them. that in itself, is a compelling ballet of brutal individual battles. there's no need to for a strategic understanding of how and where these anonymous gladiators meet each other, play after play - all one needs is an appreciation of how fiercely contested those meeting are. some fans think they understand what they're seeing, but their opinions are less their own - than the product of popular opinions shared by others - who also think they understand what they're seeing. the author of this piece fall into this category of fan... but his personal revelation regarding his limited understanding of the game doesn't impress me, because he qualifies his lack of understanding by assuming the game cannot be understood by anyone other than those in the huddle or on the sideline. that's just being lazy. there are no secrets on the football field - especially after the whistle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big C Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Nice to see a media member humble himself in such a fashion. It's rare (I'm looking at you Buscaglia). I've been excoriated by some around here in the past for simply having the temerity to suggest that perhaps we need more context before assigning failure to a particular player on a particular play. Football is not a complex game in the least. But there are 22 moving parts on any given play and each one of those parts has a specific assignment of responsibility. Sometimes it's obvious who broke down. Most of the time it isn't. Especially where line play is concerned. GO BILLS!!! Football is absolutely complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 football can be enjoyed at multiple levels. most fans don't understand what they're seeing, and could care less.. because it in no way impacts the enjoyment they get from watching a game. at it's simplest level, you can watch the ball.. those trusted to advance it, and those trusted to stop them. that in itself, is a compelling ballet of brutal individual battles. there's no need to for a strategic understanding of how and where these anonymous gladiators meet each other, play after play - all one needs is an appreciation of how fiercely contested those meeting are. some fans think they understand what they're seeing, but their opinions are less their own - than the product of popular opinions shared by others - who also think they understand what they're seeing. the author of this piece fall into this category of fan... but his personal revelation regarding his limited understanding of the game doesn't impress me, because he qualifies his lack of understanding by assuming the game cannot be understood by anyone other than those in the huddle or on the sideline. that's just being lazy. there are no secrets on the football field - especially after the whistle. You might like to get a copy of Pat Kirwan's book, "Take Your Eye Off the Ball: How to Watch Football by Knowing Where to Look." It's informative for fans at all levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BackInDaDay Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 I've heard that's a good book.. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 No matter what you think of Chip Kelley, i remember him distinctly saying when hired that evaluating film , especially OL, film without knowing what the calls were was not exactly 100% productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenhigh Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) football can be enjoyed at multiple levels. most fans don't understand what they're seeing, and could care less.. because it in no way impacts the enjoyment they get from watching a game. at it's simplest level, you can watch the ball.. those trusted to advance it, and those trusted to stop them. that in itself, is a compelling ballet of brutal individual battles. there's no need to for a strategic understanding of how and where these anonymous gladiators meet each other, play after play - all one needs is an appreciation of how fiercely contested those meeting are. some fans think they understand what they're seeing, but their opinions are less their own - than the product of popular opinions shared by others - who also think they understand what they're seeing. the author of this piece fall into this category of fan... but his personal revelation regarding his limited understanding of the game doesn't impress me, because he qualifies his lack of understanding by assuming the game cannot be understood by anyone other than those in the huddle or on the sideline. that's just being lazy. there are no secrets on the football field - especially after the whistle. I disagree, he is not saying the game cant be understood. He is saying that without knowing what play was called and whether it was correctly communicated, any assumption made about what went wrong is only that, an assumption. Might be correct, might not. Edited December 11, 2015 by Tenhigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Nice to see a media member humble himself in such a fashion. It's rare (I'm looking at you Buscaglia). I've been excoriated by some around here in the past for simply having the temerity to suggest that perhaps we need more context before assigning failure to a particular player on a particular play. Football is not a complex game in the least. But there are 22 moving parts on any given play and each one of those parts has a specific assignment of responsibility. Sometimes it's obvious who broke down. Most of the time it isn't. Especially where line play is concerned. GO BILLS!!! Well, yeah, but.. those who excoriate you don't know the meaning of that word, let alone temerity.. I disagree, he is not saying the game cant be understood. He is saying that without knowing what play was called and whether it was correctly communicated, any assumption made about what went wrong is only that, an assumption. Might be correct, might not. Right, and he's been closely covering the team for 10 years. That's a lot more inside than any fan in front of their TV on Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 I don't think there's anything all that insightful in that article. An interception might be the result of a bad throw, a mis-read by the QB , a route run incorrectly or failure of the receiver to change his responsibility. Or maybe just a great defensive play. I think most serious football fans understand that and realize that they're not always going to know who's fault everything was. That can be true of almost any aspect of the game. But sometimes things can be worked out and when a particular player seems to be involved in breakdowns a lot of the time you can bet he has issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BackInDaDay Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 I disagree, he is not saying the game cant be understood. He is saying that without knowing what play was called and whether it was correctly communicated, any assumption made about what went wrong is only that, an assumption. Might be correct, might not. the better an understanding one has of what's being attempted, the better an understanding one has of how and why the execution succeeded, or failed. it's why coaches watch film of their opponents. they don't need intimate knowledge of that team's method of communication to know what was being run, and why. they may have to make an assumption that a particular player is either deaf or stupid, to botch his assignment the way he did.. but they know what that assignment was. and nowadays, there are some fans who can get close to this understanding if they care to take the time to learn the game. here, we have a casual fan, being paid to watch the game.. and wonder of wonders - realizes he doesn't know what he's talking about. whatever.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Damn thats a fine read. Everyone in the world should be able to appreciate this effort. He does not justify himself so much as admit the differences in perspective we all have. There is nothing wrong with taking a position. But being able to understand why you were wrong is impressive. Thanks Yolo for the link. I sure did like that little bit of self analyzing from Seattle. The guy mentions one play where he make the incorrect conclusion. The basis of his mea culpa is that the observer can never know what really happened unless a coach or player tells him what happened. That's a bit too much. Not every play has layers of mystery and complexity. Sometimes we can see exactly what happened without spin/interpretation by a coach or player trying to explain away a blown play or assignment. There are members here who know far more about the nuts and bolts of the game than I do who should take exception to this guy's article about his own shortcomings. There are many TV analysts and former players (at some level) who are plenty able to look at all 22 and such and accurately conclude what happened on a particular play. This guy's claim that only a coach/player can do this (based on his own lack of knowledge) doesn't make much sense and is a facile generalization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BackInDaDay Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 The guy mentions one play where he make the incorrect conclusion. The basis of his mea culpa is that the observer can never know what really happened unless a coach or player tells him what happened. That's a bit too much. Not every play has layers of mystery and complexity. Sometimes we can see exactly what happened without spin/interpretation by a coach or player trying to explain away a blown play or assignment. There are members here who know far more about the nuts and bolts of the game than I do who should take exception to this guy's article about his own shortcomings. There are many TV analysts and former players (at some level) who are plenty able to look at all 22 and such and accurately conclude what happened on a particular play. This guy's claim that only a coach/player can do this (based on his own lack of knowledge) doesn't make much sense and is a facile generalization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenhigh Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 I think you guys are intentionally missing the obvious point in order to brag about your football knowledge, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BackInDaDay Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) I think you guys are intentionally missing the obvious point in order to brag about your football knowledge, lol. I think you paraphrased his point perfectly here.. "He is saying that without knowing what play was called and whether it was correctly communicated, any assumption made about what went wrong is only that, an assumption." ... and I think that point is invalid. if I understand what a '2' represents in an equation, but don't understand what a '3' is - I may mistakenly interpret 2 + 2 + 3 to equal 4, because I can't account for the '3'. someone who recognizes the '3' will get the right answer without making assumptions. Edited December 11, 2015 by BackInDaDay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 I think you guys are intentionally missing the obvious point in order to brag about your football knowledge, lol. Quoted for accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 The guy mentions one play where he make the incorrect conclusion. The basis of his mea culpa is that the observer can never know what really happened unless a coach or player tells him what happened. That's a bit too much. Not every play has layers of mystery and complexity. Sometimes we can see exactly what happened without spin/interpretation by a coach or player trying to explain away a blown play or assignment. There are members here who know far more about the nuts and bolts of the game than I do who should take exception to this guy's article about his own shortcomings. There are many TV analysts and former players (at some level) who are plenty able to look at all 22 and such and accurately conclude what happened on a particular play. This guy's claim that only a coach/player can do this (based on his own lack of knowledge) doesn't make much sense and is a facile generalization. It seemed to me the note was as much an article about himself as anything. Not sure why anyone is taking sides here. It was a Hey Buddy ! article more than some epiphany being shared. of course there are layers of understanding in regard to any subject matter. It shows up right here on the Board! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts